John,

> ... I'd have to say there were some important difficulties in dotNET before the recent SP. There still are a few and dotNET desperately needs VFP-style Frameworks for reasons covered in the WIKI. If that is "bashing", so be it ... <

No, I don't consider that bashing. I agree that there are a few difficulties with .NET ... I've certainly had my share of frustrations. That just goes with the territory of being an early adopter. What I'm talking about is just all the FUD that's been flying around here lately ... concerning *both* .NET *and* VFP. The only reason I didn't jump in on all the "Is VFP Dead" threads is because that has been going on for probably 10 years and I guess I'm to the point where I just tune it out now. <g>

~~Bonnie

>Dear Bonnie
>
>Having participated in a (small) dotNET Interface, I'd have to say there were some important difficulties in dotNET before the recent SP. There still are a few and dotNET desperately needs VFP-style Frameworks for reasons covered in the WIKI. If that is "bashing", so be it, time will tell whether it is fair or not. But we had the same complaints when VFP3 came out FWIW, some early adopters from 1995 will remember VFP3's severe memory leak if you requeried large datasets and some infuriating weirdness in the UI. That's the nature of a new design and early adopters know to expect a few glitches. FWIW, I'm impressed that MS moved pretty fast to try to fix the somewhat tiresome dotNET debugger glitch.
>
>I think bashing cuts both ways. "VFP is a scuttled ship that cannot be saved" is one of many blatant bashes from somebody who is rarely reprimanded by authority figures for his FUD.
>
>Regards
>
>JR